Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of court orders

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

1. ) KARTHIK A/L GOVINDARAJOO 2. ) JENNY ANAK LIKIM 1. ) GARTIBAN A/L KARUNA NITHI 2. ) SARATHA A/P SANTHANAM GARNISI 1. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. ) CIMB Bank Berhad

Citation

BD-A52NCvC-29-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-A52NCvC-29-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the injunction orders were validly served, clear and understood; defendants admitted non-compliance and failed to establish a reasonable legal excuse since access had been granted and the engineer's report was unsigned and unverified; wilful disobedience constituted contempt warranting committal (3 weeks) and a fine (RM10,000) with costs (RM3,000).
26 Sept 2025

1. ) Equitable Management Consultants Sdn Bhd 2. ) A-One Marketing Sdn Bhd 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PUSAT PERDAGANGAN AMCORP 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-428-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-428-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs had constructive notice of the Consent Order (solicitor knowledge imputable and notice board/letterbox circulation); the challenge was brought well outside the 30-day period under Order 42 r 13 without extension; unexplained delay and laches bar equitable relief; plaintiffs are estopped by approbation and reprobation and the action is a collateral attack constituting abuse of process; allegations of fraud were not particularised or supported — therefore the writ and statement of claim are struck out.
27 Jan 2025

PRISTINE POWER SDN. BHD. Pegawai Kewangan Negeri Selangor

Citation

BA-25-58-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-58-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because a valid uncontested s33 certificate was issued and not appealed or set aside, s33(3) creates a non-discretionary statutory duty on the State to pay; the State Financial Officer is bound to satisfy the certificate and mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel performance, notwithstanding arguments about federal purpose or other pending proceedings.
4 Jan 2024

1. ) Liew Yoke Chuan 2. ) KHOO CHOONG HIANG 3. ) LIEW WONG 4. ) LEE YOON LOI 5. ) CHONG KIN KHEONG 6. ) Tan Yeong Seng Dan Low See Yan 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kinta 2. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH & GALIAN NEGE

Citation

AA-25-13-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-13-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence committal was refused because Applicants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondents wilfully disobeyed the Interim Stay Order: Respondents (through solicitors) had knowledge of the order and suffered no prejudice from lack of personal service or penal notice; PKNP as registered proprietor was entitled to exercise lawful and reasonable measures to repossess the land under Section 425 NLC and thus the contested acts did not constitute contempt.
11 Jul 2023

1. ) SIMREN SINGH A/L SUNDER SINGH 2. ) JJCM REALTY SDN BHD MAYA DECOR (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCC-144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the withdrawal order was not served prior to the 18 July 2022 case management date, former counsel remained counsel of record; the absence of counsel and defendants and their failure to comply with court directions justified the recording of the default judgment; defendants lacked a meritorious defence to the RM750,000 claim; therefore the set aside application and appeal fail.
5 Apr 2023

PEMPETISYEN Loh Siew Hong NAGAHSWARAN A/L MUNIANDY PENCELAH MAJLIS AGAMA DAN ISTIADAT MELAYU PERLIS

Citation

WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner complied with procedural requirements and established specific grounds; respondent had knowledge of and wilfully disobeyed the four court orders, delay was excused by pandemic, avoidance and imprisonment, and failure of strict personal service did not prejudice the respondent; therefore leave to commence committal was valid and committal was warranted with a fine and conditional imprisonment.
26 Oct 2022

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCC-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence committal proceedings was granted because the November 2021 Order was effectively served on the defendant, she knew the terms of the Order, the Order's obligations were clear and unambiguous, and the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of contempt based on the defendant's non-compliance.
12 Aug 2022

WA-24M-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-24M-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24M-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that, absent clear evidence that each director had actual knowledge of the mandatory order, it would not be just to dispense with personal service under Order 45 r.7(7); service on the company’s solicitors does not suffice for personal service on directors without written authority; the court has no jurisdiction in these proceedings to pre-emptively dispense with personal service of future committal cause papers under Order 52, which must be decided in those future proceedings on their own facts.
21 Sept 2020

ROZALI BIN ISMAIL AMBI BIN EMBONG

Citation

WA-17D-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-17D-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the DC/DB findings because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary bodies acted perversely, breached natural justice, misconceived material facts or otherwise erred in principle; therefore there was no basis to disturb the disciplinary decision and the appeal was dismissed with costs.